Is the, or has the Companion Bible been added by BW or another user to the BW program. I really using it and it's indexes.

Thanks

07-20-2011, 04:50 AM

johns

I have a copy of the companion Bible in print. Got it many years ago. Also have his commentary on Revelation. Bullinger was truly a great mind. Unfortunately his talent was wasted by his diversion into dispensationalism.

I think what would be more valuable if you are a Bullinger fan would be "Figures of speech in the Bible". A truly invaluable resource.

For what its worth, there are several Bullinger titles available on the Logos platform (but not the Companion Bible).

07-20-2011, 09:58 AM

ISalzman

Johns, let me encourage you to not trash theological systems with which you are not in agreement. There are people of all theological stripes and persuasions on these forums, including dispensationalists. We need to be respectful and charitable here.

07-20-2011, 03:03 PM

johns

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISalzman

Johns, let me encourage you to not trash theological systems with which you are not in agreement. There are people of all theological stripes and persuasions on these forums, including dispensationalists. We need to be respectful and charitable here.

Was my post trashing a theological system? I will go back and re-read it. It was not intended that way. Thanks for your concern.

John

07-20-2011, 03:18 PM

Dale A. Brueggemann

Trashing theological systems

I do think that saying this qualifies as "trashing a theological system"; it's certainly condescending:

Quote:

Originally Posted by johns

Unfortunately his talent was wasted by his diversion into dispensationalism.

I'm no dispensationalist myself, but I would hate to think that my dispensational colleagues, who demonstrate considerable abilities in exegesis, theological reflection, and the like, are wasting their talents.

07-20-2011, 03:52 PM

ISalzman

Quote:

Originally Posted by johns

Was my post trashing a theological system? I will go back and re-read it. It was not intended that way. Thanks for your concern.

John

There are degrees of trashing, to be sure. And yours was perhaps subtler. But to say that someone's talents have been wasted because they subscribed to dispensationalism is not kind or charitable. How would you expect dispensationalists who frequent these forums to find your comments? I am a dispensationalist,* but I would never say anything unkind about someone who held to a supercessionistic covenant theology. I do not need forum rules to tell me that. But, for the record, and for good measure, there are forum rules here that encourage charitable behavior on these forums.

*By the way, this post is not about me; I periodically hear anti-dispensationalism remarks but don't get bent out of shape by them.

07-20-2011, 05:50 PM

johns

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISalzman

How would you expect dispensationalists who frequent these forums to find your comments?

The vast majority of dispensationalists would think I was too nice, not "trashing". Apparently you know little about Bullinger. Bullinger was not a classic dispensationalist, he was an ultradispensationalist.

And making that distinction is not "trashing". It is simply defining a theological position.

07-20-2011, 05:52 PM

johns

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale A. Brueggemann

I'm no dispensationalist myself, but I would hate to think that my dispensational colleagues, who demonstrate considerable abilities in exegesis, theological reflection, and the like, are wasting their talents.

Agreed.

John

07-20-2011, 06:40 PM

Dan Phillips

This voice from the back of the bus sincerely thanks Dr. Brueggemann for his charity, and notes that it's disingenuous for johns to try to cast "his talent was wasted by his diversion into dispensationalism" as anything other than (A) disparaging and (B) inaccurate, given that Bullinger was a hyperdispensationalist, among other odd things.

07-20-2011, 07:27 PM

ISalzman

Quote:

Originally Posted by johns

The vast majority of dispensationalists would think I was too nice, not "trashing". Apparently you know little about Bullinger. Bullinger was not a classic dispensationalist, he was an ultradispensationalist.

And making that distinction is not "trashing". It is simply defining a theological position.

First of all, I did know that Bullinger was an ultra or hyper-dispensationalist, but I felt there would be little value in my pointing that out. And more importantly, you did trash dispensationalism because you said (of Bullinger), and I quote, "his talent was wasted by his diversion into dispensationalism." You did not distinguish in your post between dispensationalism and ultradispensationalism. You painted all dispensationalists with a broad brushstroke and said they were wasting their talents by being invested in that theological system. By the way, though dispensational myself, I disagree strongly with many of the articulations and premises of ultradispensationalism. But, here again, I would not trash their system in a public (or even private, for that matter) forum.